"Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log requests"
Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Home Affairs
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Department of Immigration and Border Protection,
I request a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER, Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Dear Mr Fairless,
Please find attached the acknowledgement of receipt for your recent FOI
Request.
Yours sincerely
_____________________________________
Shannon Bevan
FOI Officer
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Ministerial, Executive and External Accountability Branch (MEEAB)
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
8 [1][email address]
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
via email: [1][FOI #587 email]
Dear Mr Fairless
I am writing regarding your request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the Act) that you submitted to the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection (the Department) on Friday 11 April 2014.
In this request, you sought access to:
‘…a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER,
Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with
the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log
requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013’.
The document that you have requested a ‘full copy of’ was provided to you
by Ms O’Neil in response to your internal review request relating to your
request on 28 February 2014 (in FA 14/03/00162) for:
‘…a copy of all emails, policies, procedures or other documents created by
the Department which relate to the Department's use of s15(2)(c) of the
FOI Act. Furthermore I request a copy of all emails, policies, procedures
or other documents created by the Department which relate to the
Department's handling of complaints that come from the RightToKnow website
(<[2]http://www.righttoknow.org.au/>) . I wish to exclude clarification
requests that were sent from the Department to FOI clients referencing
s.15(2)(c).’
During the internal review (FA 14/03/00162-R1) Ms O’Neil identified a
further document in scope of your request. Ms O’Neil released the document
in full but deleted information from the document that she considered
irrelevant to your original request, FA 14/03/00162. The information was
deleted under s.22(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
Charges, original requests and internal review requests
I note that each request under s.15(1) of the Act is routinely assessed to
determine whether it is appropriate to impose a charge under s.29(1) of
the Act. The Department assessed FA 14/03/00162 for charges but decided
not to impose them in that instance. I note, however, that the document
located and released to you by Ms O’Neil at internal review was not
identified at the original request stage for FA 14/03/00162. Therefore,
the document was not included in the documents when determining whether to
impose a charge for processing FA 14/03/00162.
The charges regime applies to requests submitted under s.15 of the Act and
not to internal review requests (submitted under s.54(2) of the Act).
Therefore, the document released to you by Ms O’Neil in response to your
internal review request (FA 14/03/00162-R1) was not assessed by the
Department for charges under s.29 of the Act.
Current concerns about your request FA 14/04/00800
You have submitted your request for a ‘full copy’ of the document that was
located and released to you under internal review as a fresh request under
s.15(1) of the Act. The Department accepted the request as valid under
s.15(2) of the Act and intends to process the request through the
Department’s routine procedures, including assessing the document for
charges under s.29 of the Act.
I note, however, that you could exercise your rights under s.54L(1) of the
Act and request that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(OAIC) conduct an ‘IC review’ of the Department’s internal review decision
on FA 14/03/00162-R1. It is open to you to ask the OAIC to review the
Department’s application of s.22(1)(b)(ii) to the additional document
released at internal review. This path does not involve any costs for you.
Your options
You may either:
1. proceed with the request as an ‘original request’ under s.15(1) of the
Act and be assessed for charges under the Act; or
1. submit a request to the OAIC under s.54L(1) of the Act for an IC
review of the Department’s internal review decision on FA
14/03/00162-R1 and formally withdraw FA 14/04/00800.
Timeframe for response
I note that, under the Act, the request is due on Sunday 11 May 2014,
which is a non-working day. Therefore, s.36(2) of the Acts Interpretation
Act 1901 provides that the Department may provide the response on the next
working day, Monday 12 May 2014.
I would appreciate your advice, on how you wish to proceed, by close of
business Wednesday 30 April 2014.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #587 email]
2. http://www.righttoknow.org.au/
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
via email: [1][FOI #587 email]
Re: Your Freedom of Information request
I am writing to you about the request you submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the Act) on Friday 11 April 2014 for:
‘…a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER,
Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with
the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log
requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013.’
This email is further to the email Ms Linda Rossiter sent you on Monday 28
April 2014, in which she advised you of the alternative ways that this
request could be progressed. Ms Rossiter invited you to advise the
Department by close of business Wednesday 30 April 2014 whether you wished
to withdraw this request and pursue it as an ‘IC review’ of FA 14/03/00162
or to proceed with FA 14/04/00800 as a fresh request under the Act. This
would include assessing the request for charges under the Act.
I note that you have not responded to Ms Rossiter’s email. Therefore, the
Department will progress the request and assess the release for charges.
I have been appointed as the authorised decision maker for this FOI
request. As per the Department’s routine procedures, I will now assess
your request for charges under s.29(1) of the Act and will write to you
shortly.
Yours sincerely
Angela O’Neil
Authorised decision maker
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Email: [email address]
UNCLASSIFIED
_____________________________________________
From: FOI
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2014 7:20 PM
To: '[FOI #587 email]'
Cc: Janelle RAINERI
Subject: TRIM: FOI Request FA 14/04/00800 - possible ways forward
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
via email: [2][FOI #587 email]
Dear Mr Fairless
I am writing regarding your request under the Freedom of Information Act
1982 (the Act) that you submitted to the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection (the Department) on Friday 11 April 2014.
In this request, you sought access to:
‘…a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER,
Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with
the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log
requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013’.
The document that you have requested a ‘full copy of’ was provided to you
by Ms O’Neil in response to your internal review request relating to your
request on 28 February 2014 (in FA 14/03/00162) for:
‘…a copy of all emails, policies, procedures or other documents created by
the Department which relate to the Department's use of s15(2)(c) of the
FOI Act. Furthermore I request a copy of all emails, policies, procedures
or other documents created by the Department which relate to the
Department's handling of complaints that come from the RightToKnow website
(<[3]http://www.righttoknow.org.au/>) . I wish to exclude clarification
requests that were sent from the Department to FOI clients referencing
s.15(2)(c).’
During the internal review (FA 14/03/00162-R1) Ms O’Neil identified a
further document in scope of your request. Ms O’Neil released the document
in full but deleted information from the document that she considered
irrelevant to your original request, FA 14/03/00162. The information was
deleted under s.22(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
Charges, original requests and internal review requests
I note that each request under s.15(1) of the Act is routinely assessed to
determine whether it is appropriate to impose a charge under s.29(1) of
the Act. The Department assessed FA 14/03/00162 for charges but decided
not to impose them in that instance. I note, however, that the document
located and released to you by Ms O’Neil at internal review was not
identified at the original request stage for FA 14/03/00162. Therefore,
the document was not included in the documents when determining whether to
impose a charge for processing FA 14/03/00162.
The charges regime applies to requests submitted under s.15 of the Act and
not to internal review requests (submitted under s.54(2) of the Act).
Therefore, the document released to you by Ms O’Neil in response to your
internal review request (FA 14/03/00162-R1) was not assessed by the
Department for charges under s.29 of the Act.
Current concerns about your request FA 14/04/00800
You have submitted your request for a ‘full copy’ of the document that was
located and released to you under internal review as a fresh request under
s.15(1) of the Act. The Department accepted the request as valid under
s.15(2) of the Act and intends to process the request through the
Department’s routine procedures, including assessing the document for
charges under s.29 of the Act.
I note, however, that you could exercise your rights under s.54L(1) of the
Act and request that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(OAIC) conduct an ‘IC review’ of the Department’s internal review decision
on FA 14/03/00162-R1. It is open to you to ask the OAIC to review the
Department’s application of s.22(1)(b)(ii) to the additional document
released at internal review. This path does not involve any costs for you.
Your options
You may either:
1. proceed with the request as an ‘original request’ under s.15(1) of the
Act and be assessed for charges under the Act; or
1. submit a request to the OAIC under s.54L(1) of the Act for an IC
review of the Department’s internal review decision on FA
14/03/00162-R1 and formally withdraw FA 14/04/00800.
Timeframe for response
I note that, under the Act, the request is due on Sunday 11 May 2014,
which is a non-working day. Therefore, s.36(2) of the Acts Interpretation
Act 1901 provides that the Department may provide the response on the next
working day, Monday 12 May 2014.
I would appreciate your advice, on how you wish to proceed, by close of
business Wednesday 30 April 2014.
Regards
Linda Rossiter
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #587 email]
2. mailto:[FOI #587 email]
3. http://www.righttoknow.org.au/
Dear Linda/Angela,
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I'm rather busy with other things at the moment.
Please proceed with this request as stated. I will not be seeking an IC Review of the previous FOI case (however I'm considering complaining about your handling of it, I'm still in shock how the original decision maker couldn't find a document that was sent to them).
The amount of time you have made mention of charges (6 times in the last 2 emails) makes me think I would best buy a lotto ticket if you choose not to impose them. Maybe the Department just brings out my cynical side.
I reserve the right to take any actions available to me under the FOI Act.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
via email: [FOI #587 email]
Dear Mr Fairless
I am writing in regards to your request under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 (the Act), in which you sought the following documents:
‘…a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER,
Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with
the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log
requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013’
This email is to notify you that you are liable to pay a charge in respect
of the processing of your FOI request in accordance with s.29(1) of the
Act.
Please see the attached letter for further information.
How to pay:
The deposit or full payment can be paid by cheque, money order, credit
card or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).
Cheques and money orders should be made payable to "Collector of Public
Monies" and sent to:
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
PO Box 25
BELCONNEN ACT 2616
AUSTRALIA
If you wish to pay by credit card, please complete the attached credit
card authorisation form (CCAF form). Please fill in the amount you wish to
pay and sign the form. Please include your departmental reference number
(FA14-04-00800) on the form. You may post the hard copy form back to FOI &
Privacy Policy section at the above postal address or you may scan the
signed form and send the signed scanned form by email to
[1][email address] .
Alternatively, you may pay by making an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT)
directly into to the Department’s bank account. The account details are:
Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 062987
Acct Number: 10016044
Acct Name: DIBP Official Administered Direct Credit Receipts Account
If you choose to pay by EFT, please use the departmental reference number
‘FA14-04-00800’ as your ‘customer reference number’ when making the
payment. This will allow the Department’s Finance unit to identify the
payment as an FOI ‘charges’ payment and will ensure that there are no
delays in processing your payment and/or finalising your FOI request. It
would also assist me if you could advise me when you have made the payment
and provide the EFT receipt number. As you may know, when paying by EFT
there is generally a delay between payment by the payer and receipt by the
payee.
Yours sincerely
Angela O’Neil
Authorised decision maker
FOI & Privacy Policy
Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Email: [2][email address]
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear Angela,
I refer to your email and notice issued pursuant to s29 of the Freedom of Information Act.
The purpose of this email is to:
A) Revise the scope of my request
B) Contend that the charges should be reduced or not imposed
C) Contend that the assessment of your charges is grossly over-estimated
It is important to note that this is NOT a request for internal review. I reserve the right to make a further request should it be deemed necessary.
\\Scope Changes//
I am prepared to exclude from my request the personal identifiers of other clients within the Department ONLY. I would expect this to be individual words/numbers (such as names, addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers and so on) instead of entire paragraphs.
I would expect that this remove the requirement for 12 hours of consultation with 3rd parties.
\\Charges should not be reduced or imposed//
I contend that the department should not impose charges as the release of the information is in the public interest, and would serve to better inform the community about the Department’s attitude to Freedom of Information and its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.
\\ Charges are grossly over-estimated //
The document in question is a 2 page electronic document which was personally created by you. It details a policy which you personally created and which you would be responsible for. You have an interest in the release of this document.
As the decision maker, I cannot fathom how it will take you nearly a full hour to locate a document which you created. At worst, it should take no more than 15 minutes ($3.75) to locate the relevant document. Please justify the additional 40 minutes.
You have indicated that it will take you 10 minutes to read the document. The current redacted document contains approximately 322 words. Let’s assume this full document is 400 words. The average reading speed for proof reading is 180 words per minute on a monitor for adults. This means you should be able to complete the task of reading this document in just over 2 minutes – A charge of just $0.66. Please justify the additional 8 minutes.
You have indicated it would take you over 3 hours to prepare a notice of access decision. It would appear that the Department uses templates, which should reduce this time considerably. Please justify spending 3 hours filling in a template?
\\ Summary //
In summary, I contend:
• That charges should not be imposed for the reasons stated above
• That the Department has grossly over-estimated the cost of this request
And I revise my request as detailed in the Scope Changes section above.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
by email: [FOI #587 email]
Dear Mr Fairless
I refer to your email response to my notice today, sent to you under
s.29(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act).
In your email you advised that you wished to remove personal information
of departmental clients from the scope of your request. Thank you for that
advice.
In addition you:
· contend that the charge has been wrongly assessed; and
· contend that it is in the public interest for the documents to
be released to you without any charge being imposed.
Please note that the ‘public interest’ test in relation to charges is not
whether the public interest weighs in favour of release of the document.
Rather, the public interest test in relation to charges is whether it is
in the public interest, or the interests of a large section of the public
that the document be released to you without a charge being imposed.
In relation to the assessment of charges, the assessment relates to all
the resources used by the agency from the time the request is received by
the Department. The charge reflects the resources used by the Department
to receive, acknowledge and process the request through to the final
decision stage.
Section 29(6) of the Act provides that I must respond to your contentions
no later than 30 days from today, which is Saturday 31 May 2014. However,
as this is a non-working day, s.36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901
provides that I may respond to you on the next working day, Monday 2 June
2014.
Yours sincerely
Angela O’Neil
Authorised decision maker
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Ministerial, Executive and External Accountability Branch
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Email: [1][email address]
Dear Angela,
Your last email seemed to imply that my request for both a waiver of charges and that the charges were grossly over-estimated were somehow flawed.
Should I consider this a response to my contentions? Considering it would appear that you have made your mind up, I would be bitterly dissapointed if you decided to take the mickey and wait the full 30 days before issuing a formal decision on charges.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Dear Mr Fairless
Thank you for your email.
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) provides agencies with a
range of mechanisms to balance their resources.
In relation to your request, FA 14/04/00800, Ms O’Neil must provide you
with a decision on your contentions by close of business Monday 2 June
2014 (s.29(8) of the Act).
However, I note that, as with all departmental FOI officers, Ms O’Neil has
a number of FOI requests to progress concurrently. All the requests are
subject to a range of legislative deadlines, some which clash at times.
I fully trust that Ms O’Neil will prioritise these requests appropriately
under the Act and fairly in relation to each applicant, all of whom wish
to receive their relevant decision as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Dear Linda,
Just a few things on your response.
Firstly, you reference s.29(8) of the Act. This section relates only to a rejection of a contention related to charges:
=======================
(8) If:
(a) the applicant makes a contention about a charge as mentioned in subsection (4); and
(b) the agency or Minister makes a decision to reject the contention, in whole or in part;
the agency or Minister, as the case requires, must give the applicant written notice of the decision and of the reasons for the decision.
=======================
Without attempting to pre-empt Ms O’Neil decision, should I request an Internal Review it is reasonable that you not be the reviewer, as it would seem that you have already made your mind up in relation to my requests.
Secondly, whilst I don't like to tell the Director of the FOI and Privacy Policy Section how to do her job (other then when you asked (and still do ask) for people to send their Credit Card details via email, which is the riskiest way of sending CC information and is inconsistent with ACCC advice to the public) I would remind you that the Act contains 4 words which are before the "30 days" that are contained in s29(6). They are **AS SOON AS PRACTICAL**.
This does not mean that you can deliberately delay response until
the 29th or 30th day simply because you can't be bothered or
because it suits the Department for you to drag this request out as
long as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Dear Mr Fairless
Your comments have been noted and filed.
As advised, Ms O’Neil will respond to your contentions under s.29(8) of
the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act), within the statutory time
provided, taking into account the competing priorities of her workload.
Regarding your concerns that the Department will rely on the term in
s.29(6) of the Act ‘as soon as practicable but in any case no later than
30 days after the day on which the applicant so notified the agency’ to
unreasonably delay its response to your contentions, it may interest you
to know that this type of legislative mechanism is commonly used in
administrative laws. The mechanism recognises that government agencies
will need to balance the public resources available to them (to respond to
a range of competing demands) against the requirement to make timely
decisions on a range of issues.
If you have any further concerns regarding the administrative processing
of this request, please note that you may complain to the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner at
[1]http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform... .
Yours sincerely
Linda Rossiter
Director
FOI and Privacy Policy
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
via email: [1][FOI #587 email]
Dear Mr Fairless
I am writing in regards to your request under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 (the Act), in which you sought the following documents:
‘…a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER,
Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with
the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log
requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013’
This email is to notify you that I have made a decision (under s.29(8) of
the Act) on your contentions submitted under s.29(4) of the Act that the
charge should be reduced or ‘not imposed’. Please see the attached letter
for my decision.
How to pay:
The full payment can be paid by cheque, money order, credit card or
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).
Cheques and money orders should be made payable to "Collector of Public
Monies" and sent to:
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
PO Box 25
BELCONNEN ACT 2616
AUSTRALIA
If you wish to pay by credit card, please complete the attached credit
card authorisation form (CCAF form). Please fill in the amount you wish to
pay and sign the form. Please include your departmental reference number
(FA14-04-00800) on the form. You may post the hard copy form back to FOI &
Privacy Policy section at the above postal address or you may scan the
signed form and send the signed scanned form by email to
[2][email address] .
Alternatively, you may pay by making an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT)
directly into to the Department’s bank account. The account details are:
Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 062987
Acct No: 10016044
Acct Name: DIBP Official Administered Direct Credit Receipts Account
If you choose to pay by EFT, please use the departmental reference number
‘FA14-04-00800’ as your ‘customer reference number’ when making the
payment. This will allow the Department’s Finance unit to identify the
payment as an FOI ‘charges’ payment and will ensure that there are no
delays in processing your payment and/or finalising your FOI request. It
would also assist me if you could advise me when you have made the payment
and provide the EFT receipt number. As you may know, when paying by EFT
there is generally a delay between payment by the payer and receipt by the
payee.
Yours sincerely
Angela O’Neil
Authorised decision maker
FOI & Privacy Policy
Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Email: [3][email address]
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #587 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
Dear Angela,
I wish to withdraw this request. I reserve the right to make the same or similar request in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
UNCLASSIFIED
Our references: FA 14/04/00800; ADF2014/13356
Mr Ben Fairless
via email: [1][FOI #587 email]
Dear Mr Fairless
Thank you for your advice that you wish to withdraw your request under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act), in which you sought:
‘…a full copy of the email sent from Angela O'Neill to Linda ROSSITER,
Janelle RAINERI, Rowan PATTERSON, Steven HOCKING, and Ashley SMITH with
the subject "Cases to be allocated and new processes for RTK detention log
requests". This email was sent on Thursday, 15 August 2013’
Please accept this email as confirmation that your request has been closed
on the Department’s systems as withdrawn by you. You remain free to
resubmit the request in the future.
Yours sincerely
Angela O’Neil
Authorised decision maker
FOI & Privacy Policy Section
Ministerial, Executive & External Accountability Branch
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Email: [email address]